This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What if our fundamentals are exactly backwards?
New to The Motte, looking for constructive, critical discussion.
Here's an example of what I mean by a "fundamental":
Every economic system that has seemed credible to most people since the dawn of civilization has revolved around the legal establishment and safeguarding of property through the concept of ownership.
But what is ownership? I have my own ideas, but I asked ChatGPT and was surprised that it pretty much hit the nail on the head: the definitional characteristic of ownership is the legal right to deprive others.
This has been such a consistently universal view that very few people question it. Even fewer have thought through a cogent alternative. Most people go slack-jawed at the suggestion that an alternative is possible.
Here's something from years back, before I'd zeroed in on the perverse nature of ownership:
Anyone want to brainstorm a viable alternative to "ownership"?
/images/17459352527399495.webp
What is your definition of sharing? Or to put it another way, let's say you find a nice thing. A pretty rock, a fruit, a Galacta 9000 Zappa war fleet. Given that you have no right of ownership over it, if I march over and take it from you even though you like it and want to hold it / eat it / use it, have you meaningfully 'shared' it with me?
We all know how to share. It's one of the first things we were taught. I don't have a private definition for it.
To your example, it would all depend on what I do and how I think about the fact that you seized it, right? I could choose to share it even though you took it. I could choose to take it back. I could choose to make a scene and enlist the help of arbiters, whether peers or authorities. I could fucking punch you in the face, lol. I could do anything I wanted.
I think I understand intuitively what you're trying to get at - e.g. why not let a billionaire share his summer house with homeless people? (Is this the kind of scenario you have in mind?)
Are you trying to propose a system where people are obligated to share stuff they aren't using? (so in the system, I don't have to "share" my computer, coffee mug, or charger, since I'm using them now - but I should share my electric cooker with someone else because I'm not using it now)
If so, do you not think there's value in having "right of access" 24/7 for various items? In my case, I like the fact that my books, my bed, my crockery, etc are all "on retainer" to be used whenever I want. Whereas if I had to share them all the time, it would cost me utility. Is there nothing that you "own" (I know you are against this concept, but I mean in the sense that society believes that you own it) which you don't like having unfettered access to?
No. What I want is for mutual decency and care to eliminate the insanity of wanting to be a billionaire.
I'm not proposing: I'm trying to get people to fucking think. How can we propose a system when our heads are cemented into a paradigm which history shows has not worked and is resistant to change? Who says what we need is a system? If we need a system, who says that any of us or all of us together are smart enough to design it? What if the fundamental problem is the codependence that compels us to demand that others design a system for us? What if it turns out that we can systematize on the fly and adapt to changing circumstances rather than this obsession for one-size-fits-all? Or at least let's all put our heads together and come up with something far better than what we've got.
Yes, of course, and excellent point. But I don't subscribe to "have to share" or "have to" anything at all. If a person is broken and twisted so that they want to do dysfunctional, harmful things, the answer isn't "There oughta be a law!", it's to help fix them. If they're resistant, there are ways to deal with that, too, that don't amount to erasing them socially like "convict" does. We were so brainwashed with "have to"-think we don't even know it's not necessary. If a person is relatively whole and human, they don't need to be prevented from walking into my cabin and acting like they own the place. I don't need "ownership". How would ownership prevent me from invading your house and breaking or taking your stuff if you're a renter? The owner would? What if the owner is my twin brother and doesn't like you very much? We've been trained to think in ruts and get impugned or punished for trying to break out of them. To wit: the knee-jerk arguments in response to the invitation on this post. Ownership is exactly one of those ruts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would like you to share some of your resources with me. Should I send you a venmo link, or do you prefer paypal?
I'd love to be able to share some. As it is, I'm on a fixed income well below $2,000/mo, I have six sons, 4 DILs, 4 grandkids, and friends who are all in line before you. Sorry, but I think it'll be a long wait...
Woiuld you mind sending me your computer monitor, or your refrigerator? I really doubt thaat your family members called dibs on them first and are in line before me.
More options
Context Copy link
Why is there a line, and why did your hypothetical not mention the necessity of line-waiting previously? Why can't requests simply be made and granted in the order they were received? I doubt any of the people you listed actually have asked you for 10k USD, so shouldn't I get what I asked for now? I want it, you not giving it to me is theft by your own argument via Proudhon. Are you a thief? Nor is the fixed income really a substantive obstacle, I'm sure you own 10k worth of possessions that you could sell or hand over, and I'll even waive any amount above what you do currently possess if I'm mistaken.
Alternatively, I also am willing to "share" my resources with you, provided I also get to arbitrarily create a "line", place you at the back of it, and ensure that you never reach the front and hence that the sharing never actually happens.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link